Sunday, November 6, 2011

More Business Ethics Quarterly authors

To: lackert@kennesaw.edu, bryan.church@mgt.gatech.edu, jason.kuang@mgt.gatech.edu, lqi@agnesscott.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 3:52:23 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: "Lying"
Dear Professors Ackert, Church, Kuang, and Qi,
I wish to comment on your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
Corporate wrongdoing is a very significant societal problem, and outright lying and other forms of dishonesty predominate in corporate misconduct.
Almost all of such lying and dishonesty are for the purpose of economic gain, and not for other psychological reasons.
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing, it would seem more relevant to focus on lying and dishonesty that are for the purpose of economic gain and on research and theoy about how to deter that kind of lying and dishonesty. Research about lying for non-economic purposes seems much less important.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Adam.Bailey@BHSU.edu, strudler@wharton.upenn.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 3:53:59 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: "Dialogue - The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics"
Dear Professors Bailey and Strudler,
I wish to comment on your above dialogue in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
There seems to be an endless train of highly publicized corporate wrongdoing that is of great societal concern.
I think most of the wrongdoing is unacceptable, selfish seeking of personal economic gain by means of dishonesty, subterfuge and concealment, and putting of self interest ahead of others in conflict of interest situations.
As to rights in the workplace (and elsewhere in the commercial world), and whether particular rights exist or not, and whether they should be recognized by corporations or not, it seems to me that the primary governor of corporate conduct about the same is the law. Corporations have plenty on their plate to understand what all the rights are that the law provides for and to figure out how to conduct their corporate activities in ways that properly recognize those rights. I think it can create muddle and distraction to try to inject into corporate governance ideas and debate about "moral" rights beyond the rights that the law provides for.
In terms of which is of greater societal concern, corporate wrongdoing growing out of self-interested dishonesty, or corporate wrongdoing (independent of dishonesty) of a corporation failing to understand and give proper accord to rights that actors in the commercial world have under the law, I would say the first kind of corporate wrongdoing is of greater concern (mainly because most actors in the commercial world will not knowingly stray from the law except in instances where they are pursuing dishonest practices to achieve wrongful economic gain for themselves).
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing, it would seem more relevant and important to focus on dishonesty and conflict of interest that are at the root of corporate wrongdoing and on research and theory about how to deter that kind of dishonesty. Theorizing about "moral" rights in the workplace and elsewhere in the commerical world beyond rights provided by the law seems much less relevant.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: BobKolb@mac.com, jmoriar@bgsu.edu
CC: beqeditor@uncc.edu
Sent: 11/3/2011 4:55:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Dialogue - CEO Compensation
Dear Professors Kolb and Moriarity,
I wish to comment on your above dialogue in the Business Ethics Quarterly.
Human nature is patently selfish in great measure, and altruism is frequently absent. This is especially so in the business world, particularly taking into account Adam Smith's enshrinement of the pursuit of self interest as a virtue for achieving a greater good for all.
Religion and philosophy have sought for centuries to teach human beings to be less selfish, and those efforts should not cease.
Pending greater success of religious and philosophical teachings, it seems imperative that society utilize the selfishness of human nature that responds to incentives of things that are selfishly desired and that seeks to avoid punishments, in order to deter undesired conduct.
This includes CEO compensation, and the Ethics Resource Center is to be highly lauded for its white paper Too Big To Regulate: Preventing Misconduct in the Private Sector that argues strongly for alteration of compensation structures in order to prevent misconduct in the private sector such as contributed to the recent financial crisis in the United States.
I believe another area that needs more consideration and research by business ethicists is that of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing. I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have on this subject.
If the goal of business ethicists is to lessen corporate wrongdoing in a meaningful way, I am not sure how helpful it is to expend effort debating whether CEO's should refuse to accept compensation higher than what is required for the CEO to be willing to do his or her job. Such effort could be better expended I think, for example, on my project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

From: RDShatt@aol.com
To: Adam.Bailey@bhsu.edu
Sent: 11/4/2011 3:17:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Re: "Dialogue - The Confucian Critique of Rights-Based Business Ethics"
You are welcome, Adam, and thank you for replying.
If you haven't found your way to this entry and this entry in my blog, you might be interested in reading those.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

In the appendix of your above Business Ethics Quarterly article that sets out your study measures, you indicate that anomie was measured by requesting firms to respond by circling the number of whichever of the below was most appropriate:

1. In our firm, there is pressure to meet organizational objectives by any means possible.
2. For the most part at work, there is no right or wrong way to achieve the firm’s goals.
3. At work it is considered okay to play dirty to win.
4. The attitude in our firm is that sometimes it is necessary to lie to others in order to keep their trust.
5. In our firm, the rules can be broken in order to achieve organizational goals.
6. The prevailing attitude in our firm is that “nice guys finish last.”
7. In our firm the feeling is that the ends justify the means.
8. In our firm you have to be willing to break some rules if that is what it takes to get the job done.

I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I would like to measure the effectiveness of entity level liability compared to officer and employee individual liability for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing.

One way I would like to measure that is by asking officers and employees (starting with companies where wrongdoing has allegedly taken place) a number of questions along the lines set forth below. For discussion purposes, let's take two examples of alleged wrongdoing that have received recent publicity, to wit, this at Citigroup and this at Bank of New York Mellon (the "subject examples").

I will need to refine the questions and/or work on format, but this is the gist of questions I would like to ask officers and employees at Citigroup and Bank of New York Mellon:

1. Is your belief that wrongdoing in fact took place in the subject examples?

2. To what extent do you believe that officers and employees who were participants in the wrongdoing were aware at the time that they were participating in wrongdoing?

3. In their deciding to participate in the wrongdoing, to what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants made estimates of the likelihood of the wrongdoing getting exposed?

4. In their deciding to participate in the wrongdoing, to what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants made estimates of the likelihood that they would bear any personal liability for the wrongdoing if it was exposed?

5. To what extent do you believe that officer and employee participants were uncertain at the time about whether wrongdoing was being perpetrated?

6. Is a factor contributing to uncertainty about whether something is a wrongdoing the prevalence of legal settlements that corporations make in which the corporation denies or does not admit that there was any wrongdoing?

7. To what extent do you believe that corporations enter into legal settlements in which there is not in fact any wrongdoing?

8. How much greater deterrent effect, if any, do think would obtain if there was a rule of law that there could be no liability (or legal settlement) of a corporation for wrongdoing unless there was some personal liability (or legal settlement) of officer and employee participants in the wrongdoing?

9. To what extent do you believe that any or all the foregoing matters affect in a negative way officer and employee actions and decisions relative to being ethical? To what extent do you believe there is waste and diversion of economic resources in much litigation that could be better spent in other ways to improve corporate behavior?

Professors, your article deals with, and you have investigated, whether certain culture and contextual factors engender or lessen anomie. I would like to suggest that you might consider whether entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability is a factor that can engender or lessen anomie.

On page 220 of your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly, you say, "Judging what one ought to do in a particular case is not a matter of being directed by an external authority, whether a person, government or set of conventions."

I am endeavoring to gauge the extent to which business ethicists such as yourselves acknowledge a relevant role in the study of business ethics for the law and government.

I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

I have been reviewing the past couple years' issues of the Business Ethics Quarterly as an indicator of what is currently in vogue in the study of business ethics and whether my project can garner any interest. I have contacted numerous authors of recent articles (my email correspondence can be found in the main here). Thus far, I would say I have received no indication that my project is viewed as having any merit to be worth pursuing (although no one has said in so many words that they think my project has no merit).

I have not given up yet on my project and am continuing my contacting of business ethicists about it.

If I may, may I ask, "Do think my project has merit worth pursuing in the business ethics field currently?"

In your above article in the Business Ethics Quarterly, you articulate this "dark side" of unethical leadership:

The Concept of Unethical LeadershipThe standing literature has not described destructive leader behavior as “unethical”;however, the implication is clear. Unethical behavior involves acts that are illegaland/or are morally inappropriate to larger society (Jones 1991).1 Dark side researchhas uncovered a variety of unethical leader acts. Various terms have evolved inthe literature, such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000), supervisor undermining(Duffy et al., 2002), toxic leadership (Frost, 2004), and tyrannical leadership(Ashforth, 1994). Research shows these leaders are oppressive, abusive, manipulative, and calculatingly undermining (Tepper, 2007). Their actions are perceived as intentional and harmful, and may be the source of legal action against employers (Tepper, 2007). Therefore, destructive leader behavior is unethical.Unethical leadership, however, transcends beyond the leaders’ own behavior.In seeking to accomplish organizational goals, leaders can encourage corrupt andunethical acts within their organizations. For instance, Clement’s (2006) review ofcorporate scandals in Fortune 100 corporations concluded that actions perpetratedby executives, boards of directors, and government officials were the primary causeof such transgressions. Leaders foster unethical behavior among followers withoutengaging in the behavior themselves and do so by way of rewards, condoning nonconformers,and ignoring unethical acts (Ashforth &Anan d, 2003; Brief, Buttram,& Dukerich, 2001). For instance, qualitative research shows leaders who rewardshort-term results, model aggressive and Machiavellian behavior, do not punishfollowers’ wrongdoing, and promote like-minded individuals heighten unethicalbehavior within organizations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2002). Indeed, research showsemployees engage in unethical acts to boost organizational performance or help theorganization in some other way (Finney & Lesieur, 1982; Umphress,de Bingham, & Mitchell, 2010; Yeager, 1986). Such embedded practices can insulate leaders fromprimary blame, essentially providing them “plausible deniability” (Baker & Faulkner,1993; Braithwaite, 1989). Leaders who engage in, enable, or foster unethical actswithin their organizations do not display ethical leadership (Brown et al., 2005).Instead, leaders who harness and embed unethical behavior of their followers displayunethical leadership (Pinto, Leana, & Pil, 2008). In sum, we define unethicalleadership as behaviors conducted and decisions made by organizational leadersthat are illegal and/or violate moral standards, and those that impose processesand structures that promote unethical conduct by followers. We now review theconsequences and influences of unethical leadership.

Your article includes much discussion and elaboration of what has been learned about beneficial outcomes from ethical leadership and negative outcomes from unethical leadership, including significant financial detriments for business and psychological deteriments for employees as a result of unethical leadership. Per your article's title, your article explores further avenues for future research.

It is left somewhat unspoken in your article about a mechanism or mechanisms for increasing the prevalence of ethical leadership and lessening that of unethical leadership. Nor does your article's suggestions for future research seem to encompass finding or developing such a mechanism or mechanisms.

Possibly one mechanism is simply that of education, and that Boards of Directors will be persuaded about the positive outcomes from ethical leadership and will implement programs for identifying, hiring and cultivating ethical CEO's and other high level corporate officers. Possibly CEO's and other high level corporate officers will be themselves similarly persuaded and strive on their own to be or become ethical leaders.

Your article does not discuss whether the law is a mechanism for engendering ethical corporate leadership.

A few years ago, because of developments such as the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations and the Justice Department's Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations. some business ethicists were very occupied with dissecting the same and theorizing about how the criminal law could be best applied to corporations and their officers and employees for purposes of deterring corporate wrongdoing.

I cannot tell from your article what your thoughts are about the law as a factor in fostering (or undermining) ethical corporate leadership and whether you take much interest in, say, the foregoing work of business ethicists relative to the criminal law.

For several years I have been endeavoring to put forth argumentation to the effect that certain aspects of the civil law significantly undermine business ethics. See my article Does the Civil Liability System Undermine Business Ethics? More recently I have initiated this project to investigate the views and analyses that multiple interested parties have concerning the subject of entity level liability versus officer and employee individual liability as a means to deter corporate wrongdoing.

Are you interested in the law as a factor in engendering ethical corporate leadership? If not, can you refer me to any academic colleague of yours who you think would be interested in helping me with my project and eventually trying to publish a paper growing out of the same.